This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Following an ongoing AfD of this on pl wiki, a decent source was found: Exploring the People of Middle-earth: The Witch-King of Angmar, Lord of the Nazgûl at Tor.com . Wonder if it would be enough to merit restoring this? Ping User:Chiswick Chap who improved a lot of Tolkien articles but did not participate in this AfD, and the AfD's nom, User:Clarityfiend (if anyone wants to pint other AfD particpants, be my guests). PS. Here's a possibly useful scholarly source: link/link which contains the following sentence: "...an important character in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings known as the “Witch‐king
of Angmar” or “Lord of the Nazgûl.” If someone can read this chapter and figure out why the author thinks the character is important and summarize it the analysis, it would likely help to show the notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tor.com is certainly a usable source. The "scholarly link" above doesn't work, and is in any case in Korean...? The multiple reliable sources and cited text over at Nazgûl are certainly enough to make the topic notable. The question therefore is whether and how we can make two worthwhile articles where today we have one.
To do that, we will need to show that the Nine are sufficiently substantial as a topic that they deserve a separate article, rather than vanishing into a wraithlike redirect. They do have a distinct role, in book and film, as enemy and villains, long before their Lord emerges as a separate character; and later, when they fly, they have a further role as messengers to the rebellious vassal Saruman. Their article will, as now, contain a section on their Lord: but it will be a condensed summary, with a "main" link.
I'll study the AfD carefully to be sure we can answer the deletion arguments in full. We certainly have the core of a good solid case.
If there are by now also usable sources on the Nine in games, that would help further. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The old AfD has 9 contributors (inc. nom.), and the reasons they give are as follows:
Old AfD arguments
Deletion reasons given
How these can now be rebutted
Old text was primary / in-universe
It was, but notability is established in the real world: many good secondary sources exist, including those in Nazgûl (and the TOR source). Failure to discover, use, and cite the available sources is poor editing, but it does not demonstrate non-notability.
He is one of the Nazgûl, so should be covered there.
He is, but that doesn't follow. Gimli is a Dwarf, Aragorn is a Ranger, Henry VIII is one of the Kings of England: the logic doesn't work.
He's not independently notable.
This is false; he is covered in multiple reliable sources; scholars, critics, and fans (of book, films, and games) all find him highly significant.
His name is not "Witch-king of Angmar".
Well we can choose any convenient name for the article that works as a unique label, and that is one of them. "Lord of the Nazgûl" would be equally good; one of the two names will be a redirect to the other. Both names are readily justifiable from Tolkien, and both remain in wide use. As stated in the discussion, Tolkien does not give his actual name, which is stated to have been "forgotten".
He is not much of a character.
On the contrary, he is an exceptionally memorable character who has impressed readers and viewers at many levels, from the most literary to the most visceral.
Piotrus: I think we are free to go ahead with the article. The only point I'd make is that I'd start afresh; we can't just restore the old text as it totally fails to sing the character's notability. We need sections on the Tolkien character (fully cited), Jackson's film version, other appearances suitably sourced, and "Analysis" to contain the wealth of scholarly material. If you can tell me what the ?Korean? text says (in English) I'd be grateful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap Re the Korean text, I guess for some reason (I live in Korea) the Google Scholar/Books results I link to that are in English display in Korean for people (maybe you are not logged in to your Google account and your preferences don't enforce English?). The book is in English - I have a partial preview here - does that work for you? But even better, you should be access the full text through the Wikipedia Library through this link (worst case, I can @ you the pdf). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, or should I say 많은 감사 ("manh-eun gamsa"). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus: I've given it a go, and edited Nazgûl accordingly; see what you think. I was concerned they'd end up looking the same and having all the same refs, but they aren't anything like that. Instead, they have different subjects and different scholarship, which is how it should be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus: Many thanks. I've had a look at the Polish Wiki deletion discussion. Obviously you could copy and translate the "Analysis" section here, which is derived from sources (Fontenot, Shippey, Hunsinger, Rutledge) mostly (barring a mention of Fontenot) not cited in the Polish Wiki article. The table of "Old AfD arguments" above may well apply also to the Polish discussion. Perhaps you could link or translate it there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
